30.06 and 30.07 signs

[rotor]

What’s my DtP? It’s right in .06(f) and in .07:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as defined by Section 46.01 .

You are only talking about EMS people.

 

[toddnjoyce]

You are only talking about EMS people.

No, I’m not. Did you read 46.01, where volunteer emergency services is defined.

Here, let’s just get it out in the open:

(18) "Volunteer emergency services personnel" includes a volunteer firefighter, an emergency medical services volunteer as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, and any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations. The term does not include a peace officer or reserve law enforcement officer, as those terms are defined by Section 1701.001,

That’s pretty plain language, but I’ll repeat it here absent all the other words around it and within the grammatical confines:

any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.

There is no further definition or limitation. That’s a statute wide enough one can can drive an aircraft carrier thru it.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

How does one provide proof of being a volunteer?

 

[rotor]

No, I’m not. Did you read 46.01, where volunteer emergency services is defined.

Here, let’s just get it out in the open:

(18) "Volunteer emergency services personnel" includes a volunteer firefighter, an emergency medical services volunteer as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, and any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations. The term does not include a peace officer or reserve law enforcement officer, as those terms are defined by Section 1701.001,

That’s pretty plain language, but I’ll repeat it here absent all the other words around it and within the grammatical confines:

any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.

There is no further definition or limitation. That’s a statute wide enough one can can drive an aircraft carrier thru it.

Using your logic nobody can be trespassing if they claim to be EMS. I don’t know why you think that this is a viable defense to prosecution for the average person that carries past a no trespassing sign.

 

[toddnjoyce]

How does one provide proof of being a volunteer?

As a defense to prosecution, the prosecution has to disprove your evidence. In reality, the way it works is you tell the cop and he says, ok just leave and you leave or he says tell it to the judge and gives you a ticket because the basic offense is a Class C misdemeanor, if he told you to leave and you didn’t, then it’s a Class A and you can be arrested.

So you get the ticket (or get arrested) and notify the prosecutor’s office you are entering a statutory defense to prosecution. Then the prosecutor says thanks and dismisses charge. If he doesn’t, then you tell the judge you have a DtP and that you’ve already informed the prosecution of that fact and the judge confirms that with the prosecutor and asks if the prosecutor can prove otherwise.

If he can’t the judge says thank you for your time and dismisses the case. If he can, the he gets to argue it to the judge and you get the opportunity to rebut. The kicker is, how does the prosecution prove you aren’t what you claim, which is in the text bolded above.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Sounds good to me....

 

[toddnjoyce]

Using your logic nobody can be trespassing if they claim to be EMS. I don’t know why you think that this is a viable defense to prosecution for the average person that carries past a no trespassing sign.

This is getting tiresome. The statute says what it says in plain language. You keep insisting that statute only applies to EMS and you’re flat out wrong.

You’ve said anyone printing in a .06 place is going to get LEO attention real quick. The data shows less than about 3 thousandths of one percent of the relevant firearms convictions are for a .06 or a .07 violation.

Your beliefs are not supported by the statute or by the data.

 

[rotor]

This is getting tiresome. The statute says what it says in plain language. You keep insisting that statute only applies to EMS and you’re flat out wrong.

You’ve said anyone printing in a .06 place is going to get LEO attention real quick. The data shows less than about 3 thousandths of one percent of the relevant firearms convictions are for a .06 or a .07 violation.

Your beliefs are not supported by the statute or by the data.

Don't quote me arrest data. Your argument for defense to prosecution is to claim EMT status or to be providing emergency services which for a non-EMT is during an actual emergency, as the law says. If your argument is valid nobody can be successfully prosecuted for any trespass of any kind by claiming such status. But note that for non EMT there has to be an emergency. Sorry you are tired about this. It is a hypothetical situation but I don't believe a LTC holder carrying past a 30.06/07 sign will get off the hook saying he carried past the sign because he was there to provide services in an emergency situation (unless there really was such an emergency).

 

[toddnjoyce]

Don't quote me arrest data. Your argument for defense to prosecution is to claim EMT status or to be providing emergency services which for a non-EMT is during an actual emergency, as the law says. If your argument is valid nobody can be successfully prosecuted for any trespass of any kind by claiming such status. But note that for non EMT there has to be an emergency. Sorry you are tired about this. It is a hypothetical situation but I don't believe a LTC holder carrying past a 30.06/07 sign will get off the hook saying he carried past the sign because he was there to provide services in an emergency situation (unless there really was such an emergency).

Here’s real world data. Since that language was added in 2017, I’ve ignored all .06/.07 and now .05 signs. I carry a 1911 pretty much al day, every day and don’t take a whole lot of precautions to make sure I don’t print.

I’ve yet to have an LEO encounter, much less have been asked to leave a posted location. The only place I have been asked leave was posted .06 and not .07, so I openly carried in there. Took until after our meal was ordered and I had been back and forth to the restroom before somebody came and said they knew it wasn’t posted .07, but would appreciate it if we would take our order to go. So we did. It was a cordial conversation in a popular area of San Antonio, which another member here has sworn SAPD has arrest on site orders for situations like this.

Hell I even carried past six NPS LEO Rangers who were within arms reach inside an NPS facility in New Mexico a year ago and nothing happened. It wasn’t until I went to use the restroom as we were leaving that I had an oh shit moment.

You have have you’re beliefs and that’s fine, but you simply cannot disprove mine.

 

[cycleguy2300]

No, I’m not. Did you read 46.01, where volunteer emergency services is defined.

Here, let’s just get it out in the open:

(18) "Volunteer emergency services personnel" includes a volunteer firefighter, an emergency medical services volunteer as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, and any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations. The term does not include a peace officer or reserve law enforcement officer, as those terms are defined by Section 1701.001,

That’s pretty plain language, but I’ll repeat it here absent all the other words around it and within the grammatical confines:

any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.

There is no further definition or limitation. That’s a statute wide enough one can can drive an aircraft carrier thru it.

Ham radio?

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

Ham radio?

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

I don’t see why not. If you bulletize the commas, it makes a lot more sense.

The DtP in .06 and .07 isn’t even an affirmative DtP, so I don’t know if the prosecutor would even be able to procedurally challenge it.

*If* I was ever charged, I have enough first aid and FEMA certs and training that a prosecutor would have a hard disproving my defense.

 

[jordanmills]

This is what needs to be eliminated next. Enforceable signs.

We already have a surprising amount of progress there. Volunteer emergency services personnel are exempt from 30.06/30.07. No definition in law, so it's basically up to you to define for yourself. For the sake of all of us, please make sure it's honest, legitimate, and verifiable. Get an amateur radio license and a storm spotter certification and/or participate in ARES/RACES, register for and work an event on crowdsourcerescue.com, etc.

Edit: looks like I missed a page.

 

[jordanmills]

Ham radio?

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

Arguably. For better coverage (and for the benefit of all of us) make sure you participate in a storm weather net at a minimum. Get in with ARES/RACES (organized emergency response group, but most local groups require use of services that are illegal for amateur radio operators to use as amateur radio operators outside of emergencies, so I won't participate in their ops).

Or you can register (and please participate in) crowdsourcerescue.com.

Or you can meet some neighbors and get them familiar with FRS radios and simplex communications for neighborhood organization in an emergency. If you can get them used to using offset-capable radios, you can set up a low-coverage repeater and light it up for use in a legitimate emergency.

The added benefit of all of that is that it is helpful for people dealing with a real emergency, which should be enough reason to do it by itself.

 

[jordanmills]

Don't quote me arrest data. Your argument for defense to prosecution is to claim EMT status or to be providing emergency services which for a non-EMT is during an actual emergency, as the law says. If your argument is valid nobody can be successfully prosecuted for any trespass of any kind by claiming such status. But note that for non EMT there has to be an emergency. Sorry you are tired about this. It is a hypothetical situation but I don't believe a LTC holder carrying past a 30.06/07 sign will get off the hook saying he carried past the sign because he was there to provide services in an emergency situation (unless there really was such an emergency).

I think you're not reading what you're talking about. Not all EMTs qualify for the exemption. Only volunteer EMTs would qualify. They also qualify for exemptions to other sections, such as carrying in "bars", but only while engaged in providing those services. That seems clearly indicate legislative intent to carve out different levels of exemption for a perceived difference in level of relevance to an emergency (for example, a volunteer storm spotter would likely not be spending time hanging out in a bar like they might be in a grocery store picking up milk when a line of tornadoes breaks out and their immediate participation is needed, but a EMT in a VFD might need to enter a bar to treat someone for a life-threatening condition that comes up while the victim is at the bar).

 

[rotor]

I think you're not reading what you're talking about. Not all EMTs qualify for the exemption. Only volunteer EMTs would qualify. They also qualify for exemptions to other sections, such as carrying in "bars", but only while engaged in providing those services. That seems clearly indicate legislative intent to carve out different levels of exemption for a perceived difference in level of relevance to an emergency (for example, a volunteer storm spotter would likely not be spending time hanging out in a bar like they might be in a grocery store picking up milk when a line of tornadoes breaks out and their immediate participation is needed, but a EMT in a VFD might need to enter a bar to treat someone for a life-threatening condition that comes up while the victim is at the bar).

I think you are mixing me up with that other fellow. You seem to be arguing my points.

 

[jordanmills]

I think you are mixing me up with that other fellow. You seem to be arguing my points.

Like I said, I don't think you're reading what you're talking about.

 

[rotor]

Here’s real world data. Since that language was added in 2017, I’ve ignored all .06/.07 and now .05 signs. I carry a 1911 pretty much al day, every day and don’t take a whole lot of precautions to make sure I don’t print.

I’ve yet to have an LEO encounter, much less have been asked to leave a posted location. The only place I have been asked leave was posted .06 and not .07, so I openly carried in there. Took until after our meal was ordered and I had been back and forth to the restroom before somebody came and said they knew it wasn’t posted .07, but would appreciate it if we would take our order to go. So we did. It was a cordial conversation in a popular area of San Antonio, which another member here has sworn SAPD has arrest on site orders for situations like this.

Hell I even carried past six NPS LEO Rangers who were within arms reach inside an NPS facility in New Mexico a year ago and nothing happened. It wasn’t until I went to use the restroom as we were leaving that I had an oh shit moment.

You have have you’re beliefs and that’s fine, but you simply cannot disprove mine.

I respect your convictions. I may not agree with your interpretation but I respect someone who practices what he preachers.

 

[rotor]

Like I said, I don't think you're reading what you're talking about.

And I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

[jordanmills]

And I have no idea what you are saying here.

You're saying that there's something goofy with people understanding an exemption to 30.06 and 30.07 for anyone who has a legitimate claim to being called "volunteer emergency services personnel" under the definition in TPC 46.01, right?

 

[rotor]

You're saying that there's something goofy with people understanding an exemption to 30.06 and 30.07 for anyone who has a legitimate claim to being called "volunteer emergency services personnel" under the definition in TPC 46.01, right?

Just the reverse. I think that it is logical to have the exemption. The words here are legitimate and emergency. I think that just like in good samaritan laws anyone responding to an emergency should have a defense to prosecution or lawsuit.